alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF MEDALLION FINANCIAL CORP.



|                                 |  |                                           
|-------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation
|Medallion Funding LLC            |  | New York                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Capital, Inc.          |  | Minnesota                                 
|                                 | 
|Freshstart Venture Capital Corp. |  | New York                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Bank                   |  | Utah                                      
|                                 | 
|Generation Outdoor, Inc.         |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Hamptons Holding LLC   |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Taxi Medallion Loan Trust III    |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Servicing Corp.        |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|Medallion Fine Art, Inc.         |  | Delaware                                  
|                                 | 
|LAX Group, LLC                   |  | Delaware
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  C ASCADE H EALTH S OLUTIONS FKA M C K ENZIE -W ILLIAMETTE H OSPITAL , No. 05-35627 an Oregon nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.



#  CV-02-06032-ALH v. District of Oregon, P EACE H EALTH , a Washington State Portland nonprofit corporation,

Defendant-Appellee. 

# 

 C ASCADE H EALTH S OLUTIONS FKA M C K ENZIE -W ILLIAMETTE H OSPITAL , No. 05-35640 an Oregon nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.



#  CV-02-06032-HA v. District of Oregon, P EACE H EALTH , a Washington State Portland nonprofit corporation,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

 C ASCADE H EALTH S OLUTIONS FKA M C K ENZIE -W ILLIAMETTE H OSPITAL , No. 05-36153 an Oregon nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.



#  CV-02-06032-HA v. District of Oregon, P EACE H EALTH , a Washington State Portland nonprofit corporation,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

3287

#  C ASCADE H EALTH S OLUTIONS FKA M C K ENZIE -W ILLIAMETTE H OSPITAL , No. 05-36202 an Oregon nonprofit corporation, D.C. No.

Plaintiff-Appellant, CV-02-06032-HA



# 

v. District of Oregon, Portland P EACE H EALTH , a Washington State nonprofit corporation, ORDER

Defendant-Appellee. 

# 

Filed March 20, 2007

Before: Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The court invites supplemental briefs by any amicus curiae addressing the following issue raised in this appeal: Whethera plaintiff who seeks to establish the predatory or anticompetitive conduct element of an attempted monopolization claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act by showing that the defendant offered bundled discounts to the defendant’s customers must prove that the defendant’s prices were below an appropriate measure of the defendant’s costs. If so, what is the appropriate measure of costs and how should the trial court instruct the jury on the matter of costs? If not, what standard should the trial court instruct the jury to use to determine whether the bundled discounts are predatory or anticompetitive?

Any briefs responding to this order shall be filed no later than thirty days from the filed date of this order. All briefs shall comply with the page or type-volume limitations set forth in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 29(d) and 3288 C ASCADE H EALTH v. P EACE H EALTH32(a)(7). Any person or entity wishing to file a brief as an amicus curiae in response to this order is granted leave to do so pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a). 3289 C ASCADE H EALTH v. P EACE H EALTHPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2007 Thomson/West.
#### Handy BAILEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-10034-JJ

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 16, 2009.

*402Handy Bailey, Jr., Coleman, FL, pro se.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner-Appellant Handy Bailey, Jr. (“Bailey”), a federal prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the District Court’s summary denial of his Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 (“Rule 33”) Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence. The District Court denied his untimely motion without explanation. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

On 18 December 1997, Bailey was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The District Court sentenced him to 360 months in prison followed by 96 months of supervised release. In the following years, Bailey filed several post-conviction motions.

On 12 April 2007, Bailey filed a Rule 33 Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence. According to Rule 33, Bailey had three years to file this motion. The last date on which he properly could have filed it was 18 December 2000.

The District Court denied the motion *sua sponte*and did not indicate the basis on which it made its decision. On appeal, Bailey argues that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to explain why it denied the motion.

Motions for a new trial are reviewed for abuse of discretion. *U.S. v. Martinez,*763 F.2d 1297, 1312 (11th Cir.1985). District courts are responsible for rendering reasoned decisions, and this Court has remanded where a one-sentence summary denial denied the “opportunity to conduct meaningful appellate review.” *Danley v. Allen,*480 F.3d 1090, 1091-92 (11th Cir.2007). This Court has remanded 28 U.S.C. § 2255 cases when the district court summarily denied them. *See, e.g.,*
      *403
      *Broadwater v. U.S.,*292 F.3d 1302, 1303 (11th Cir.2002). But this Court has also said that not every summary denial needs more explanation, and some § 2255 motions may be clearly without merit. *Id.*This Court may affirm a lower court ruling on any ground supported by the record. *U.S. v. Mejia,*82 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir.1996).

This motion was untimely by at least five years and is therefore clearly without merit, and we affirm its dismissal on that ground.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.3

Confidential

LOGO

Interoffice Memorandum



|      |  |                                                          
|----- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|To:   |  | Personnel File                                           
|      | 
|From: |  | Timothy M. Shannon, EVP and Chief Medical Officer        
|      | 
|Date: |  | January 24, 2007                                         
|      | 
|Re:   |  | Amendment to Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2006



---

I, Timothy M. Shannon, (the Executive) signed an Employment Agreement (the Agreement) with my employer, CuraGen Corporation (the Company), on or about September 1, 2006, providing that the
Executives initial base salary shall be subject to increases by the Board of Directors, which shall review the salary periodically. Therefore, pursuant to the minutes of the January 24, 2007, Meeting of the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors, the Executives 2007 base salary will be adjusted to $344,500 per year, payable in bi-weekly installments.

Unless explicitly
changed in the Addendum dated January 24, 2007, all other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



|                           |  | 
|-------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Timothy M. Shannon, MD |  | 
|Timothy M. Shannon, MD     |  | 
|                           | 
|/s/ Frank M. Armstrong, MD |  | 
|Frank M. Armstrong, MD     |  |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 31, 2016

NO. 03-15-00221-CR

Michael Grace, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD 

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and 

the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), each hereby
certifies that, to his/her knowledge on the date hereof:



| |  | /s/MICHAEL L. CAMPBELLMichael L. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
March 14, 2006
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/AMY E. MILESAmy E. Miles
Chief Financial Officer
March 14, 2006              

---



QuickLinks
#### Eugene FORTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNIGHT RIDDER, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-15983.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 13, 2009.

Eugene Forte, Los Banos, CA, pro se.

Erica L. Craven, Levy Ram *&*Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Traci A. Kirk-bride, Office of the County Counsel County of Monterey, Salinas, CA, Anne Bailey Miller, Esq., Robinson & Wood, Inc., San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Eugene Forte appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and dismissing without prejudice his various state law claims. Forte also appeals the district court’s denial of leave to amend. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim. *113*Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd.,*362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court correctly determined that absolute quasi-judicial immunity bars Forte’s claims against the Office of the Attorney General, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Paul Hammerness, Senior Assistant Attorney General James Schiavenza, and Supervising Deputy Attorney General Tyler Pon for actions taken within their authoi’ity. *See Fry v. Melaragno,*939 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir.1991). Quasi-judicial immunity also bars Forte’s claims against Monterey District Attorneys Dean Flippo and Terry Spitz. *Id.*Forte’s claims against FBI Agent James Burrus, Monterey County Sheriff Michael Kanalakis, Monterey County Counsel Charles McKee, and Monterey County Chief Investigator Sue Stryker were insufficient because, accepting his allegations as true, Forte does not allege facts showing that he was deprived of any constitutional right. *See Baker v. McCollan,*443 U.S. 137, 140, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979); *see also Owyhee Grazing Ass’n. Inc. v. Field,*637 F.2d 694, 697 (9th Cir.1981).

As to the claims against numerous California state judges, the district court properly dismissed Forte’s claims relating to actions undertaken in their judicial capacities on the ground that state court judges are entitled to absolute immunity for official actions. *See Harvey v. Waldron,*210 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir.2000); *see also*42 U.S.C. § 1983.

While it appears that some of Forte’s claims against certain government defendants may fall outside the scope of their immunity, liberally construing Forte’s claims, Forte suggests no basis upon which he would be able to amend his complaint in order to cure the defects, and we see none. *See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr.,*66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 13 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 67
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 13

 Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya 
  and the Government and the people of the United States, and making 
                    provision to prosecute the same.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2011

Mr. Paul introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the 
                               first time

                              May 24, 2011

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya 
  and the Government and the people of the United States, and making 
                    provision to prosecute the same.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That--
            (1) a state of war between the United States and the 
        Government of Libya is hereby formally declared; and
            (2) the President is hereby authorized and directed--
                    (A) to employ the entire naval and military forces 
                of the United States and the resources of the United 
                States Government to carry on war against the 
                Government of Libya; and
                    (B) to issue to private armed vessels of the United 
                States commissions or letters of marque and general 
                reprisal, in such form as the President shall think 
                proper, and under the seal of the United States, 
                against the vessels, goods, and effects of the 
                Government of Libya.

                                                        Calendar No. 67

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 13

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya 
  and the Government and the people of the United States, and making 
                    provision to prosecute the same.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 24, 2011

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          56,332
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     38,226
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          28,446
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            27,991
<LOANS>                                        704,613
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 850,201
<DEPOSITS>                                     689,021
<SHORT-TERM>                                    39,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,246
<LONG-TERM>                                     22,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,496
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 850,201
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 35,977
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,537
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                39,514
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,735
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,009
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           19,505
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      850
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,337<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,010
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,920
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,920
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   10.00
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,302
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,402
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  9,561
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,885
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,221
<RECOVERIES>                                        25
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,539
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,539
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDED IN EXPENSE-OTHER IS $350,000 OF PROVISION FOR VALUATION ALLOWANCE ON
LOANS HELD FOR SALE
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11



# CURAGEN CORPORATION
 
 COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
 
 ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
 
 (unaudited)

|                                                          | Three Months Ended
   
   September 30, | Nine Months Ended
   
   September 30,
|--------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------
|
|
|
|                                                          |                                         |                                       
|Net loss                                                  |                                         | $(5,147,393                           
|Preferred dividends                                       |                                         | --                                    
|                                                          |                                         |                                       
|                                                          |                                         |                                       
|Net loss attributable to
     common stockholders         |                                         | $(5,147,393                           
|                                                          |                                         |                                       
|Basic and diluted net loss
     per share attributable to |                                         |                                       
|common
     stockholders                                  |                                         | $     
         (0.37                 
|                                                          |                                         |                                       
|Weighted average number of
     shares used in computing  |                                        
|basic and
     diluted net loss per share attributable to |                                        
|common
     stockholders                                  |                                         | 13,998,362                            
|                                                          |                                         |
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 72 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 72

   To repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for 
   payments of $600 or more to corporations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

  Mr. Baucus (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Mr. 
  Brown of Ohio, Mr. Begich, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Nelson of 
 Nebraska, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. 
 Menendez, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Coons, and 
 Mr. Franken) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for 
   payments of $600 or more to corporations, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Paperwork Mandate 
Elimination Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and 
the amendments made thereby, are hereby repealed; and the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such section, and 
amendments, had never been enacted.
                                 <all>
```